Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-22-Speech-3-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100922.3.3-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, I listened carefully to your speech, a summary of which could be ‘everything is fine’. There are no problems in the Council. I admit that you were there and I was not. You witnessed the discussion at close hand and I did not. Nevertheless, I had a somewhat different perception of the European Council to the one you have presented here.
I believe that what we witnessed was – at least in two cases – the rebellion of the Heads of Government against the European reality. The four freedoms that have been guaranteed since Maastricht are the free movement of services, capital, goods and people. I have the impression that, in the European Union, we need to attach the same level of importance at least to the free movement of people as we do to the free movement of capital. I sometimes also wish that capital could be dealt with with the same level of intensity as the free movement of people is dealt with in Europe.
However, what we are actually seeing – and you hinted at this, although you did not say it explicitly – is that in this post-Lisbon process in which we currently find ourselves, the institutions are fighting for their positions of power. What we are seeing in the Council is the new institution represented by you, as the European Council consisting of the Heads of State or Government has only existed as an institution since Lisbon. This new institution is trying to secure its position of power. That is not dishonourable; all institutions do the same, but in association with what is happening in the European Council, there is a huge risk that, in the post-Lisbon process, the competences that have been transferred to the EU, the competences that are bestowed upon the Community institutions in the treaty, will be made subject to the approval of the European Council – in my last speech here, I described this as a type of directorial government. That is precisely the wrong way to go about it. You cannot, on the one hand – as you have done – proclaim that we need joint European statements, joint European action and a European united front, for example, in international policy, international diplomacy and international trade, while, on the other, saying: but only when it suits me in terms of my national interests. If it does not fit in with the national interests, if it is not appropriate in terms of domestic policy, then we do not want it. However, that is exactly what is happening right now in the European Union, and, I might add, it is not specific to one particular government. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has most of the governments; the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament also has governments. All the governments respond in the same way. It is not an ideological response, but an institutional one. This institutional danger spells danger for Europe as a whole.
The task of the European Parliament – and this is therefore an appeal to all groups – is to say, with a large majority, that we want what Mr Daul described as the Community method, which is nothing other than the transposition and implementation of joint competences for solving problems, to be applied in a concerted manner at European level. Can anyone here imagine us still being able to solve any sort of monetary policy problem at national level? The answer is ‘no’. Could any climate challenges be solved at national level? No. Could a global trade policy problem be dealt with by an individual Member State alone? Of course, we can have talks with China as the EU – as the EU with a population of 500 million and the force of 27 combined national economies. That is one option. We could also divide ourselves into smaller units with the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Latvia, Cyprus and Malta all acting separately. That is also possible. I do not think that China would be very impressed by that if you went there, Mr Van Rompuy. We therefore need the Community method, and, in my opinion, it is the task of this Parliament to ensure that this Community method is applied. The Commission has shown for the first time in the form of Mr Barroso’s statement in connection with the Roma issue that it is prepared to fight. We will, and indeed must, solve the problem of the Roma. This Parliament will solve it just as we have all said here: human dignity is inviolable. That also applies to complicated minorities. Therefore, we will not let up on the issue of the Roma.
However, our next challenges are coming from somewhere completely different – the Financial Perspective – and I can tell you now that, in this regard, the renationalisation strategy will be met with broad resistance from the whole of the European Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples